WHL wrote:The Republicans have passed plenty of bills in the House, but when they get to the Senate, the Senate which we all know is Dem controlled kills them. WHO is the party of NO that you guys keep talking about???????

I see that Outerlimits needs a lesson in real, not revisionist history, and you need a lesson in Senate procedures. The filibuster is a tool used by the minority party to force a bill to need 60 votes for passage. This group of Senate Republicans has used it over 500 times, a record amount, in order to obstruct legislation. Last year the Republican controlled House passed about 55 bills, a possible record for inactivity. The thing that's going to destroy whichever nit-wit the Republicans put up in 2016 is the complete inaction by the House on important measures like immigration, minimum wage, unemployment and veterans benefits, and the uncontrollable use of the filibuster by the Senate. Hillary wins by double-digits !

So you are saying…Since the Democrats didn’t have COMPLETE control for the past five + years, Obama should not be held responsible for his many failures?

Are you also will to say since George W. Bush didn’t have complete control throughout two terms, he is not responsible as well?

Yeah, I didn’t think so.

This is Obama’s economy and all the finger-pointing by the Dems does not change the facts.

With all the “success” the Community Organizer has had directing the economy, healthcare and foreign affairs, an argument can be made that the Republicans have not done enough to stop the King of Fools.

Outerlimits wrote:So you are saying…Since the Democrats didn’t have COMPLETE control for the past five + years, Obama should not be held responsible for his many failures?

Obama is enormously successful in the face of childish obstruction! The Republicans are the sore losers who have lost the argument on Obamacare, the economy, foreign policy, Benghazi, the IRS, the environment and much more. The only thing the Republicans are successful at is whining, as evidenced by this Forum Of Gloom!

Thank God for Obama. He so expertly guides the economy so that we can have a 2.9% contraction. Printing money and handing it out to a select few is no basis for a sound monetary system. In addition, backing all risk/failure by robbing the tax base also accelerates your own demise.

Bush is long gone and cannot be blamed any further for the state of affairs and Executive choices leading to or reacting to that state of affairs.

Its hard to say "Obama is enormously successful" and a 2.9 contraction is about as gloomy as you get.

The economists are still largely blaming the weather for the bad first quarter and they're predicting good growth for the rest of the year. We have also seeing a job growth around 200K monthly recently. We'll see who eats crow by the end of the year, but the Congress needs to do something about the highway trust fund. The Republicans have done nothing to help the economy. Look at Wisconsin. Walker promised 250 thousand jobs in his first term and he didn't even get half way there. Wisconsin is something like 39th in job growth. So much for supply side economics. The Republicans are always wrong.

Maybe you should be championing so-called global warming and we shouldn't be talking about hamstringing our economy further with ways to (allegedly) avoid it.

It's funny watching the Obama legion tripping over themselves trying to defend their great leader lately. There is no defense just spinning. Maybe that is the problem they are all dizzy?

They cheered, cried, and clapped like trained seals when in '08 Obama said Bush was '"irresponsible and unpatriotic" for running up $4 trillion in debt over eight years, and the same clapping seals applaud Obama for running up over $7 trillion in five years.

They pilloried bush for gasoline prices of $2.50/gal, and are silent when we are stuck at $3.50/gal under Obama.

The ridiculed Bush for 5% unemployment, and applaud 7% under Obama.

The pummeled Bush for 4% growth, and now they excuse Obama for -3%

Americans are getting what they voted for and the consequences are painful for many, especially painful for those of us who didn't vote for him.

It isn't even fun to say I told you so anymore. The man is a disaster.

News Buzzard wrote:And thanks to the Republicans the Congress has a 6% approval rating. So who really are the stupid ones ?

So you are saying it’s the Republicans in congress fault we had a 2.9% contraction in GDP. Hold that thought…I’ll get back to it in a moment.

News Buzzard wrote:4% growth under Bush is a lot of nonsense. Bush's economy led us to bleed out 800 thousand jobs a month and a 10% unemployment rate.[/b]

You are correct sir. It was not 4%, GDP grew as high as 7.3% (2004), the biggest growth since 1984. At the same time (2004-2007) we had the Bush tax cuts that resulted in a $785 billion increase in revenue, the largest 4-year increase in U.S. History.

News Buzzard wrote:[Once again you're re-writing history, but people really aren't that stupid, hence the 6% popularity rating for Congress.

In 2008 Democrats took the congress so therefore (by your logic displayed above) it must have been their fault we lost 800 thousand jobs a monthand had a 10% unemployment rate.

You can’t have it both ways.

What was it you said the other day “be a man”? We just saw a historically bad 2.9% contraction in GDP. We are in year 5 of this catastrophic administration and you are still trying to blame the previous administration and the minority party when it is clearly Obama’s policies that are the problem.

Obama, the progressives and News Buzzard have been going on for quite some time about how great the economy is, and those evil Republicans won’t give the credit where it is deserved. But when the economy shows it is weakening…well then it suddenly becomes the Republicans and Boooooooooooosh’s economy.

It's nice the way you crow about the economy in 2004 before Bush drove us off the cliff. The Republican strategy is to do nothing and then point the finger at Obama when nothing gets done. When you add Hillary's time I guess we're looking at 10 more years of useless obstruction.

You can re-write history all you want but my guy won and you don't have a prayer against Hillary. That's why you're churning up all of these BS 39 year old cases.

Obama wants $500 million to train Syrian rebels. Are your toads going to give it to him? I'm curious to see what the war mongerers, McCain, Graham and Ayotte say about that!

News Buzzard wrote:It's nice the way you crow about the economy in 2004 before Bush drove us off the cliff. The Republican strategy is to do nothing and then point the finger at Obama when nothing gets done. When you add Hillary's time I guess we're looking at 10 more years of useless obstruction.

.

_________________..."The beauty of being a liberal is that history always begins this morning..."

Daniel Greenfield, a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the Freedom Center. He is completing a book on the international challenges America faces in the 21st century. Since we’re on an imaginary recovery from a real recession, it’s time to upgrade that recession to a real depression for twice the recovery.

"This speech was made in Vegas, because when you want to trash the economy with a politically correct gamble, the place to roll the loaded dice is in Sin City.

The Washington Post reports that the administration is pushing a plan designed to encourage banks to lend money to riskier borrowers, in order to boost the housing market. The plan is designed to help young people (who have little to no credit history) and folks whose credit may have been damaged by the great recession.

Raise your hand if you see the flaw. The reason some of those people got ruined by the recession is because they were given loans they probably shouldn’t have been given. A surge in shaky home loans over the last 10 years is often the first thing people think of when they think about the collapse of the economy in 2008.

Yes, but surely that can’t happen a second time. I mean what are the odds that the government will pressure banks to make bad loans and that liberal billionaires will monetize those bad loans a second time to fund the election campaign of Hillary Clinton, whose husband set up this whole mess?

But at this point, the government essentially is the mortgage market; the overwhelming majority of loans now go through an entity controlled by the US government. So the government is going to set the underwriting standards. The question is, will they set them too high or too low?

Obama Inc. is playing with other people's money and it needs to get some action going to claim a recovery, even if it has to go on faking it. So it will set the standards to too low. What does it have to lose?

And it’s all the more egregious because it repeats so many of the mistakes we’ve been lamenting — and paying for — the past five or six years. Not to mention that existing FHA-backed loans are already believed to be under-capitalized and run the risk of a taxpayer bailout that could rival those of GM and Chrysler.

Taxpayers have lots and lots of money? Right?

And who could possibly have an interest in all this?

Wells Fargo has become the dominant U.S. mortgage lender, grabbing an unprecedented 28.8% share of all home loans issued nationwide last year, up from 11.2% in 2007, the year before it bought Wachovia. Its home-loan production hit $524 billion last year, the largest annual total ever for one lender and greater than the output of the next five largest lenders combined, according to the publication Inside Mortgage Finance…

The big question now looming for Wells and other mortgage lenders is what will happen when the refinancing boom wanes. Loans to purchase homes accounted for only about 25% of the mortgage industry’s production last year. Mortgage refinancing accounted for 75%—business that is likely to decline precipitously when interest rates start rising again. Timothy Sloan, Wells’s chief financial officer, told investors last month that he expected mortgage revenues to decline in the first quarter—a sign that a refinancing slowdown may have begun.

Wells Fargo. Sounds familiar. Who is cashing in on that?

Warren Buffett’s voracious appetite for shares of Wells Fargo in recent years has made the San Francisco bank his biggest investment in a public company.